Tuesday, April 22, 2014

White life; birth-to-death by state

An adept commenter pointed me in the right direction, allowing for the creation of a non-Hispanic white (hereafter simply "white") vitality index by state based on CDC data (the site's interface takes a bit to get the hang of, but the filtering capabilities and consequent exacting outputs are great). It gives an indication of the increase (or contraction) of the nation's native white population.

The index is computed by taking a state's annual number of white births, subtracting from it the number of white deaths, dividing that figure by the state's total white population, and multiplying the result four orders of magnitude for ease of comprehension. That is, the larger the number, the higher the births-to-deaths ratio is. Negative values indicate more deaths than births. All data are from 2010:

StateVigor
1. Utah123.4
2. Alaska76.9
3. District of Columbia72.3
4. Hawaii60.2
5. Idaho 57.9
6. Wyoming39.6
7. Colorado38.4
8. South Dakota36.3
9. Nebraska32.9
10. Kansas32.5
11. North Dakota30.9
12. Minnesota29.8
13. Virginia28.9
14. Indiana24.5
15. Washington23.8
16. Montana20.6
17. Iowa20.5
18. Kentucky19.9
19. Texas19.7
20. Missouri18.9
21. Louisiana17.7
22. Georgia16.5
23. Wisconsin14.8
24. North Carolina12.2
25. Illinois12.1
26. New Hampshire11.9
27. Oklahoma11.7
28. Maryland11.3
29. Ohio10.5
30. South Carolina10.4
31. Vermont10.0
32. Michigan8.1
33. New York7.6
34. Tennessee6.6
35. Arkansas6.0
36. Oregon5.6
37. Arizona5.3
38. Mississippi4.1
39. Delaware2.1
40. Massachusetts1.5
41. Nevada(1.0)
42. Alabama(2.4)
43. Maine(4.3)
44. California(6.6)
45. West Virginia(7.8)
46. New Jersey(8.5)
47. Pennsylvania(8.8)
48. Connecticut(12.1)
49. New Mexico(16.9)
50. Rhode Island(23.3)
51. Florida(32.9)

Here is an accompanying visualization showing the states with the most vitality in bright green, through teal, to turquoise, through lighter blue, and finally with the most enervated states a deep blue hue:


Keep in mind this doesn't take into account interstate migration. A lot of blue hairs who can afford to do so opt to move to Florida to live out their golden years. Many stay through the gloam until their suns finally set. Alternatively, an urban spot like DC attracts a lot of relatively young people who will ultimately leave the place for somewhere more bucolic down the road.

It shouldn't come as much of a surprise to see Utah in the #1 spot by a long shot. Mormons are the living embodiment of the classic 1950s American dream. Moribund they most certainly are not.

Generalizing, the upper Midwest, northern mountain, and frontier states are relatively vivacious; the Northeast, Southwest, and--perhaps most surprisingly given that the region is characterized by warm weather, low living costs and modest population densities, religiosity, and political conservatism--the South are relatively feeble.

Parenthetically, the 2010 CDC data shows white births slightly outnumbering white deaths (2.16 million and 1.97 million, respectively). That explains part of the reason that most states have positive white vitality index scores, but it's also an artifact born out of the fact that many of the country's most populous states like California, New Jersey, and Florida are at the bottom of the list.

Friday, April 18, 2014

Trust rusts

The FWD.us oligarchs would like to bring in foreign tech workers who, in addition to decreasing the cost of the labor they utilize by increasing its supply by their mere presence, are also less demanding and more pliable than their native counterparts are. The oligarchs would also, presumably, like us to trust them and their companies such as Facebook, since so much of their business models rely on users freely sharing information with said companies.

Sadly, the oligarchs face a problem. While the US is still a relatively high trust society--its oligarchs especially so--the countries sending the bulk of new immigrants here are not. It comes as little surprise, then, in answering the GSS question "Generally speaking, would you say that most people can be trusted or that you can't be too careful in life?", 34.6% of native-born respondents answered in the affirmative compared to only 24.0% of those who are foreign-born. (Okay, it's not much of a problem--the oligarchs don't care about rising mistrust or increasing social isolation; if you're going to hole up indoors, might as well check out your facebook feed!)

A corollary to diversityas distrust is diversity as a muzzle on free speech. Steve recently pointed to an article in the NYT about censoring trashy politically incorrect campus publications that features the perspectives of multiple "Mexican-American" students.

How does the wider Hispanic 'community' feel? The percentages of respondents, by race, who say racists should be permitted to express their beliefs publicly:

White -- 63.5%
Black -- 53.7%
Asian -- 52.3%
Hispanic -- 47.1%

GSS variables used: TRUST, YEAR(2000-2012), BORN, SPKRAC, RACECEN1(1)(2)(4-10)(15-16)

Thursday, April 17, 2014

Heil Brandenburg

John Derbyshire:
Reviewing a book about eugenics for VDARE.com brought home to me again what a colossal influence on our intellectual culture the Nazis were. What would our public conversation on human-nature topics—race, genetics, the Jews—be like if the Nazis had never existed? Way different, for sure.
What, indeed, would a non-German conversation on Germany be like? The observation provides a nice segue for what I saw when the family was strolling through a local bookstore the other day:


 
In the history section the two shelves labelled "Germany" had between them a single book that was on a subject not directly related to Germany's involvement in the second great war and/or the role the Nazi party played in getting it there.

Thomas Sowell deals with this in a chapter in Black Rednecks and White Liberals. If someone of European descent were to argue as much he'd no doubt be betraying his Nazi sympathies in the process, much as Pat Buchanan has in questioning the wisdom of American involvement in WWII!

Friday, April 11, 2014

Percentages of births by race at the state level

Although it doesn't get the same sort of international attention that a Germany or a Japan gets for the putative demographic cratering that it presages, non-Hispanic white (subsequently just "white") deaths are now occur more frequently in the US than white births do. Without net white immigration into the country, the US white population would be declining. In a few years' time it will be, despite the net immigration.

It's proved a herculean task to find annual death figures by state and race and, not being descended from anything supernatural, I haven't been up to the task [Lemmus found this; a bit dated and missing some categories though better than I did]. But what should be quite easy to find--the contemporary percentages of births by race by state--doesn't appear to exist anywhere in the virtual world, either.

Until now, that is! Behold, the following table shows the percentages of births by race (all but the "Hispanic" column being non-Hispanic) and by state in 2011, ranked by vibrancy. This gives a good idea of what the adult demographic characteristics of the United States--if they indeed do remain united--will look like at the mid-century mark (figures add up to less than 100% as negligible "others" are not included). The picture is not complete, of course, since internal and external migration are additional relevant factors. Asterisks indicate insufficient data:

State%Vibrant%Wht%Blk%Hsp%AsnPI
1) Hawaii73.826.22.616.054.7
2) New Mexico71.528.51.755.01.7
3) California71.029.05.750.113.1
4) District of Columbia70.429.649.915.14.2
5) Texas64.235.810.848.74.4
6) Nevada56.643.49.937.57.9
7) Arizona54.345.74.539.13.8
8) Florida 53.746.321.927.93.2
9) Maryland53.446.631.314.47.3
10) Georgia53.246.832.214.64.2
11) New Jersey52.647.414.526.711.0
12) New York50.849.215.523.710.0
13) Mississippi^46.953.141.43.61.1
14) Alaska46.453.63.76.58.3
15) Louisiana 44.955.136.36.12.0
16) Illinois44.855.215.922.55.9
17) Delaware43.656.425.612.84.9
18) Virginia43.556.520.412.47.3
19) North Carolina42.857.222.415.53.5
20) Connecticut41.558.512.222.56.0
21) South Carolina41.258.830.18.71.9
22) Alabama38.561.528.67.81.7
23) Rhode Island38.062.08.422.34.7
24) Colorado37.762.34.527.93.6
25) Washington36.263.84.818.49.9
26) Massachusetts36.064.09.617.28.4
27) Oklahoma35.964.18.513.02.8
28) Tennessee31.168.919.79.12.2
29) Arkansas30.869.217.410.51.9
30) Oregon29.470.62.519.35.6
31) Michigan29.170.917.96.83.4
32) Pennsylvania28.771.313.89.94.0
33) Kansas26.973.16.916.03.2
34) Minnesota26.074.09.16.87.1
35) South Dakota24.975.12.14.31.8
35) Wisconsin24.975.19.09.74.5
37) Nebraska24.475.66.214.12.6
38) Ohio23.376.715.64.62.5
39) Missouri23.176.914.05.52.5
40) Indiana22.477.611.18.72.3
41) Utah20.080.01.014.92.9
42) Idaho19.880.2*15.51.8
43) North Dakota18.581.5*3.2*
44) Wyoming17.882.2*11.6*
45) Montana17.682.4*3.7*
46) Iowa16.383.74.58.23.0
47) Kentucky16.283.88.95.11.9
48) New Hampshire11.488.6*4.24.0
49) Maine7.492.63.0**
50) West Virginia5.994.13.4**
51) Vermont5.894.2***

^ Perhaps surprisingly, perhaps not; the least racist of the majority-white (aka Racist) states

The accompanying visualization (lifted from here) shows the most vibrant states in a deep blue hue, through lighter shades of blue, to teal, and finally shows the most regressive states in a bright green:

Friendly, conventional America is also intolerably white America. Time heals all wounds, however, and these states are only delaying the inevitable.

No other surprises here. As Steve Sailer says, the stuff that's easiest to predict doesn't get many people excited. The Southwest is our future. Currently, 44% of the nation's population lives in states where white births constitute a minority of total natality, with the four big kahunas--California, Texas, New York, Florida--following the example set by the list's authentic kahuna.

The cultural, economic, and social consequences are, I suppose, debatable (something akin to a Mexico/Brazil hybrid is my guess). The political ramifications, however, are clear. When Texas goes purple and Florida has gone reliably blue, it'll effectively spell the end of Republican executive power. When Texas becomes solidly Democratic sometime over the next couple of decades, not even the faintest GOP dream will go uncrushed save for some sort of miraculous political realignment in the upper Midwest transpiring in the interim. One prerequisite for such an outcome is the Republican party becoming the nation's de facto white party. To those unschooled in the byzantine rules of contemporary cultural Marxism, that might seem like a natural role for the country's putatively conservative party to adopt, even embrace. The party's professional marionettes and their Cathedral handlers know much better than that, though.

The aforementioned disclaimer is important, because this is a glimpse of what the US will look like a generation down the road if all immigration stopped tomorrow. That obviously isn't going to happen. We've already crossed the Rubicon. The most restrictionists are able to hope for is that Caesar's march southward can be slowed down long enough for Pompey's natives to--again, miraculously--spring out of the soil.

Friday, April 04, 2014

Here she stand

Razib offers the nuanced approach of a thoughtful, hyper intelligent politically conservative Asian in reacting to a 'controversial' Stephen Colbert tweet. The relevant background is here, or just watch this five minute exchange between a self-styled Asian millennial activist and a cookie-cutter SWPL:



The exact building attributes of the oppression hierarchy skyscraper don't interest me as much as the hope, however faint or quixotic, that the whole edifice might someday come crashing down.

As the clip above illustrates, the cultural marxism of the Cathedral has now entered its the beginnings of its Protestant phase. There are no longer white saints like Stephen Colbert on the one hand and white sinners like Jason Richwine on the other. Just because the former mocks the latter's racism and the latter putatively embraces it does not mean that one goes to heaven and the other goes to purgatory if he prostrates himself and grovels enough, or, in Richwine's particular case, unapologetically straight to hell. That's the old Catholic model.

In the new reformation, minorities are angels (occupying different rings of Paradise in line with the aforementioned oppression hierarchy skyscraper) and whites--all of them--are fallen beings. When the SWPL host hubristically challenges Suey's argument, she answers his sacrilege by declaring "it's incredibly patronizing for you to paint these questions this way, especially as a white man. I don't expect you to be able to understand what people of color are actually seeing."

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone has become, in Suey Park's more snarky contemporary rendition, "I'm glad that white liberals feel like they are less racist because they can joke about people who are more explicitly racist but that actually does nothing to help".

Sola gratia. You see, my child, it is by the grace of the oppressed alone that whites may be saved.

Wednesday, April 02, 2014

Regurgitating giant droppings

Jayman, discussing Gregory Clark's The Son Also Rises:
The pattern that we see is much what one would expect of a lineage over time if, collectively, the additive genetic components of this success factor was largely passed on from one generation to the next. Indeed, it really shouldn’t be any different. The individual variation is caused by a variety of factors, including environmental “luck”, non-additive genetic effects, developmental noise, and spousal genetic contribution (which may help or hinder). But, the key point, when the whole clan is considered at once, all these sources of variance should more or less cancel out. The only thing that breeds true is the additive genetic variance, and, in any large clan, that should pass on fairly uninterrupted from one generation to the next. The whole clan’s short-term generation-to-generation variance can be caused by variation in local circumstances that may help or hinder the entire lineage. That too should, over the generations, cancel out, in good part. The success of the clan over time is then dictated by its evolutionary fitness and it the degree of assortative mating.
Family = Clan = Ethnicity = Race. Jayman could be describing any of these four terms. They are essentially interchangeable, the only thing distinguishing the succeeding term from the one preceding it being size, and saying that the transition points between these terms are hazy and indistinct is a major understatement. A big, related family or group of related families is a clan; a big, related clan or group of related clans is an ethnicity; a big, related ethnicity or group of related ethnicities is a race.

Steve Sailer pithily summed this up nearly two decades ago, describing a race as an extended family with some level of in-breeding present.

From this, we discern things like what La Griffe du Lion calls the fundamental constant of sociology, the implications being, among other things, that if both a white couple with IQs of 115 and a black couple with IQs of 115 each have a child, chances are the child from the white union is going to have a higher IQ than child from the black union. It's far from certain that as much would be the case when only a single white and single black couple are being considered, but take 100 white and 100 black couples as described above, and it's virtually guaranteed that, on average, the collective white litter will have a higher average IQ.

Intelligence is just one aspect of countless other characteristics--seemingly all traits are heritable to some degree--but just this one is often too much for most polite people to handle. The truth is no less evitable in spite of them, of course.

Working from the ground up, so-to-speak, is probably the most socially and politically effective way to spread the HBD word.

Monday, March 31, 2014

We get old and gray and doubled up, and troubled up

Pew recently released a report entitled "Attitudes about aging: A global perspective". The following table shows the percentage of survey respondents in each country who identified the graying of their countries as a "major problem":


East Asia is concerned because it needs to be--especially Japan--and also because it's East Asia.

Americans, in contrast, are blithely unconcerned because despite a CVS or Walgreen's going up on every street corner in anticipation of a senescent future, the mass exodus of baby boomers from the workforce is still in its seminal stages and has been retarded by the economic turbulence of the last several years. Additionally, economists assure us that there is little reason to be worried so long as we throw open the borders since immigration will fix everything. Despite the fact that the average age of network television viewers continues to rise, popular entertainment is mostly devoid of programs focusing on elderly. Is there anything comparable to Golden Girls on TV today?

Curiously, the 65+ segments of the US and Russian populations constitute identical percentages of their respective total populations. Although there is more immigration into the US than into Russia (immigrants tending to be younger than the natives of the countries they're settling are) and that the US enjoys a higher birth rate than Russia, over the next four decades the US' share of the 65+ population is actually expected to grow slightly faster than Russia's is. Contra Billy Joel, it is the evil Russians who tend to die (relatively) young(ish). Problem averted?

How expressed worry translates into effective solutions to the putative problems caused by an inverting age pyramid remains murky. Immigration, unless it comes from other developed countries facing a similar predicament, is about as effective as the triumph mayor Quimby holds for Bart after his pet bird-eating lizards escaped:
Quimby: For decimating our pigeon population... I present you with this scented candle.

Skinner: Well, I was wrong. The lizards are a godsend.

Lisa: But isn't that a bit short-sighted? What happens when we're overrun by lizards?

Skinner: No problem. We simply release wave after wave of Chinese needle-snakes. They'll wipe out the lizards.

Lisa: But aren't the snakes even worse?

Skinner: Yes, but we're prepared for that. We've lined up a fabulous type of gorilla that thrives on snake meat.

Lisa: But then we're stuck with gorillas!

Skinner: No, that's the beautiful part. With proper education, the gorillas do as well as wintertime rolls around, the gorillas simply freeze to death.
Will clinically-minded, collectivist East Asian nations begin encouraging euthanasia? The WVS asks a question about the justifiability of euthanasia. It's phrased around the issue of an incurable illness rather than merely old age, so it's not optimal. Still, it seems like a reasonable proxy. The question is on a 10-point scale. The higher the mean value, the more amenable the country's population is to the idea of elective euthanasia:

CountryHaraKiri
France6.8
Japan6.5
Great Britain6.1
Spain5.6
Russia5.3
Germany4.9
United States4.9
South Korea4.7
Mexico4.3
Argentina4.0
Italy3.9
Brazil3.5
China3.3
South Africa3.2
Turkey2.8
Indonesia1.8
Egypt1.3

Little evidence that East Asians are more comfortable with suicide than Westerners are. There is, however, a strong relationship (r = .77, p = .0003) between how gray a nation's population is and how supportive it is of euthanasia. As arthritis and senility set in, the march of progress continues on unabated.

With all due irreverence, it's notable that the religion that produces suicide bombers has little tolerance for self-inflicted deaths in the name of convenience. Or, to put it in another way, they'll die for things like God and country, but not because of the discomfort a bad back brings. We, on the other hand, will take a stand for little more than our own creature comforts. Who would you rather have fighting on your side? Yikes. At least we still have the gatling gun, I suppose.

WVS variable used: V206

Saturday, March 29, 2014

So gay

++Addition++Wm Jas notes that when it comes to "homosexuals" vs "gays", the latter has probably only just finally pulled ahead in the last couple of years. Also, "same-sex marriage" (yes, I know that's the proper way to write it, but I thought including the hyphen would cause "same sex marriage" to be missed since most punctuation isn't included unless specified) gets more searching than gay marriage does (though as far as I know "same-sex marriage" isn't offensive. Might be incorrect on that).

---

Via Steve Sailer, an article in the NYT illustrates depressingly well how the Cathedral's cultural marxism demands call for nothing less than total compliance in thought, word, and deed:
Consider the following phrases: homosexual community, homosexual activist, homosexual marriage. Substitute the word “gay” in any of those cases, and the terms suddenly become far less loaded, so that the ring of disapproval and judgment evaporates. 
Some gay rights advocates have declared the term off limits. The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, or Glaad, has put “homosexual” on its list of offensive terms and in 2006 persuaded The Associated Press, whose stylebook is the widely used by many news organizations, to restrict use of the word.
If one hailed from another planet, he might be forgiven for presuming from this that "homosexual" is not only a foundational part of the sociological and psychological nomenclature, but also the vernacular term that dominates everyday conversations among ordinary people discussing the subject.

First, let's look at the formalized end of the spectrum. To ensure an apples-to-apples comparison (ie, avoid capturing "gay" as Mr. Burns would employ it), the following graph from nGrams shows the percentages of books published by year in the US that contain the phrases "gay marriage", "homosexual marriage", and "same sex marriage" (the last because, descriptively-speaking, it is the most accurate--homosexuals/gays have always been allowed to marry just as heterosexuals have been able to; the former's issue is with the way marriage is defined, not with who is allowed to partake):


Okay, so that war was won two decades ago. But we've heard rumors that there are some Pompeians holed up somewhere out there in the mountains of Hispania, so now is not the time for complacence.

The elites' Newspeak has been correctly updated and internalized for decades now, but how about the proles? Google search volumes for the same three phrases (gay marriage, homosexual marriage, same sex marriage) over the ten years that the company has been tracking user searches:


Gay marriage is used 27 times as frequently as homosexual marriage is, and over four times as frequently as same sex marriage is. For those incorrigible few who use either of the latter two phrases, know that you and your disapproving, judgmental disapprovals and judgments place you firmly on the wrong side of history!

Thursday, March 27, 2014

God, king, and country

Ed West doesn't think many Europeans would, if the prospect of military action between Russia and the West was actualized, be willing to fight for the EU. I suspect it would be a moot point because the US would end up providing the lion's share of the 'Allied' forces, but his sentiment seems about right.

Like the Bolsheviks who found the proletariat unwilling to fight for the brotherhood of industrial workers but eager to take up arms on behalf of mother Russia, the Brussels bureaucrats, to the extent that they could convince anyone to go to war, would probably have to do so by way of encouraging individual member countries to sell the conflict as threatening to the well-being of each said individual nation itself rather than to the polyglot organization they're all members to.

Between 2005-2008, the WVS dichotomously queried respondents on whether or not they'd be willing to fight for their countries if, unfortunately, war became unavoidable. The percentages of participating EU countries (italicized) who said they would be, as well as the percentages for Russia and a few other select countries outside the Old Continent:

Fight for country%
Turkey97.2
Norway87.6
China86.9
Sweden85.8
Finland84.3
Russia83.3
India81.4
Egypt80.1
Poland75.0
Slovenia74.5
United States63.1
Great Britain61.5
France61.1
Netherlands47.6
Spain44.6
Italy43.4
Germany37.4
Japan24.6

Three generations later, losing WWII still puts a damper on the warrior spirit.

The heart and soul of the European Union (figuratively, of course, as that particular body is soulless)--France, Germany, Britain, Italy, Spain--show relatively little enthusiasm for fighting for their own countries, let alone the EU.

They may not be militaristic, but the old vikings don't look like self-hating ethno-masochists.

Fewer than two-thirds of Americans say they'd answer the call of duty. I wonder if the Navy becoming a floating brothel and the elevation of diversity as the military's highest value have anything to do with that. Iraq and Afghanistan probably haven't helped much, either. What a pity.

Wednesday, March 26, 2014

How many lives did slavery save?

In the most recent episode of Radio Derb, the eponymous host comments:
The further we get away from the age of slavery, the more angry people seem to be getting about it.

Well, some people. You know … black people. Slavery was a nearly universal feature of human society until the early-modern period, and was no respecter of race or nationality. A few years ago I reviewed Robert Davis's fine book Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters. Davis is a professor of history at Ohio State. In his book he tells the story of Muslim slave-raiding across the Mediterranean.
I wonder how many lives the "institution of slavery" (a phrase that is probably more obfuscating than it is clarifying, since the variables have, well, varied a lot across time and place) has saved throughout anatomically modern human history.

Lots of slaves became as much as a result of capture by an opposing military force engaged in campaigns in which human booty was not the official (or primary) objective. It's often safer and almost always easier for a fighter to kill his potential captive than it is to subdue him, keep him alive, and get him to a market or trade caravan--especially civilians inside a town that has been successfully sieged--but because that captive tended to be worth more alive than dead, there was a strong monetary incentive for the fighter not to kill or maim him. It's not as though slavery came without risks--volcanic ash wasn't the only thing to explode out of Mt. Vesuvius; Nat Turner's rebellion brought slave owners' worst nightmares to life; under the Yuan dynasty, Chinese slaves apparently often targeted their direct co-ethnic owners rather than their Mongol overlords during uprisings and rebellions.

Net-net, are there more people alive today than there would otherwise be had no person ever been held in involuntary bondage to another? Presumably it's an impossible question to answer and of course it's an evil one that only an evil person would even think to ask.

Sunday, March 23, 2014

Support for affirmative action by race

At the battle of Pharsalus, with time on his side and fresh off a modest victory at Dyrracium, Pompey Magnus, under pressure from his confrontational supporters, took the fight to a Caesarian side that was battle-hardened but also weary, heavily outnumbered, and precariously low on provisions. The resulting victory Julius Caesar enjoyed was the turning point in the Roman civil war.

It would be outrageous to compare the sheathing of swords drawn to shred Proposition 209 with the battle that broke Pompey the Great (though one can still search through Pandora's stuff for a ray or two). It's a minor setback for affirmative action as well as evidence of budding discord in the ranks of the leftist coalition. However, it's confined to the most Asian state in the contiguous US and it was ceded on an issue--higher education--that rank-and-file NAMs don't care that much about.

Part of the reason for my pessimism comes from the realization that as the white population in the US declines proportionally, antagonism towards it is likely to increase rather than attenuate (see Latin America). It also comes from the fact that affirmative action is about as unpopular as having open borders is among the electorate, yet both are foisted upon a docile public by the savvy, engaged high priests of the Cathedral.

The GSS regularly asks respondents about affirmative with regards to two specific designated 'victim' classes; blacks and women. The first table shows support for preferential treatment for blacks, by race. Additionally, whites are further separated by political orientation. For contemporary relevance, all responses are from 2000 onward:

% support forblack AA
All whites11.6
Liberal whites23.3
Conservative whites6.5
Asians24.3
Hispanics23.3
Blacks44.0

Asian sentiment towards affirmative action is comparable to that of liberal whites. Well, when it comes to blacks, anyway. They're considerably more favorably disposed towards giving women preferential treatment than even SWPLs are:

% support forfemale AA
All whites24.5
Liberal whites29.1
Conservative whites18.2
Asians44.2
Hispanics47.9
Blacks57.5

Until affirmative action is seen as blatantly coming at the expense of Asians rather than only at the expense of heterosexual white gentiles, I wouldn't bet on it causing serious fracturing of the leftist coalition. As long as Democratic pols are astute enough to keep it from coming to that--as assembly speaker John Perez was in California last week--the tide isn't going to turn.

GSS variables used: AFFRMACT(1-2), FEJOBAFF(1-2), RACECEN1(1)(2)(4-10)(15-16), POLVIEWS(1-2)(6-7), YEAR(2000-2012)

Thursday, March 20, 2014

psychO

Heartiste's fascinated post about a bona fide psychopath got me wondering whether there is any evidence that psychopathy carries with it an identifiable evolutionary advantage in the contemporary western world. If it's genetically beneficial anywhere, the atomized, post-modern Occident is probably the place, since in other times and places it could get a practitioner ostracized or killed, whereas in the enlightened West, if anything, Good people just get worked up over those expressing disapproval of the psychopath's lifestyle. Live and let live, asshole.

Naturally, to attempt as much, let's tap the GSS. The survey doesn't deal with psychopathy and sociopathy explicitly, but a few variables feel like plausible proxies. First, a fertility comparison among men who both say there is nothing "seriously wrong" with cheating on taxes and who have also cheated on their spouses (psychos) and among men who find cheating on taxes to be morally objectionable and have not cheated on their spouses (suckers) (n = 223):

MenAvgKids
Psychos1.86
Suckers2.13

And, more explicitly, among men who say "a selfish person" is at least a "fair description" of themselves (psychos) compared to those who say it is an inaccurate self-description (martyrs) (n = 1085):

MenAvgKids
Psychos1.10
Martyrs1.71

There is more fecundity in the first table because it only considers men who have been married at some point, while the latter catches all men (and also a wider range of years).

Hardly definitive, but at any rate the data doesn't provide any reason to think that psychopathic traits are evolutionarily advantageous any longer, if they ever were. That, of course, doesn't imply that they aren't sexually advantageous, especially among men sly enough to break the rules and avoid detection in so doing (purely speculative, but I'd guess high IQ psychopaths fair better relative to high IQ non-psychopaths than low IQ psychopaths fair relative to low IQ non-psychopaths).

For brevity, I'll subsequently refer to archetypal psychopaths and suckers. Clearly most men fall somewhere in between, some closer to one end, some closer to the other.

It's not difficult to conceive that, at some point in the fairly recent past, psychopaths may have successfully spread their seed more effectively than suckers did, perhaps after large scale movement into cities and out of the countryside but before the ubiquity of easily accessible birth control severely separated procreation from sexuality (so long as there is some amount of the latter existing, obviously--it may be the beta's time to be fruitful and multiply, but the omega never has and never will).

Similarly, it's not difficult to see why psychopaths would be 'hurt' (in terms of reproductive fitness) more from the widespread availability of contraception than suckers would be. Psychopaths are all about getting what they want. What they want is evaluated narrowly--as Heartiste puts it, the psychopath "is missing, or seductively convinces himself that he’s missing, a moral sense, save for that morality which accrues to the self". Suckers, stoics that they are, for various reasons (religious and otherwise) assign a lot of other duties to themselves, one of which is often raising a family. Psychopaths want sex but have no use for the attendant cramps that kids bring, especially the nearly unavoidable and legally sanctioned drain on their financial resources that come with. Suckers want sex, too, but they also want--or are at least willing to shoulder the responsibilities that come with--children.

Pat Buchanan famously called the pill the suicide tablet of the West, but it might be making us, ceteris paribus, more family-oriented people. When psychopaths see the following, it fills them with dread. When suckers see as much, they get an incomparably deep feeling of joy in the very marrow of their bones (yeah, I'm revealing myself to firmly be in the sucker camp, but go ahead and eat your hearts out):


Uh oh, there's more:


Hopelessly smitten orbiter at your service!

The big question is whether genetic selection for men with a nurturing instinct can outrun cultural solipsism and broader societal dissolution. Women who have children are, according to the GSS, modestly less likely to cheat than women who don't have any offspring are, so to the extent that women are hereditarily steering the ship one way or the other, it's gently in the direction of overriding the tingle/settling and away from harlots surrendering to their passions.

As Heartiste also points out, that female contribution is a feature rather than a bug. As an aside, the average number of children among SWPL women living in big cities is 1.40. Among conservative white women in small towns and out in the countryside, it's 2.05.

GSS variables used: EVSTRAY(1)(2), SEX, AGAPE(1)(2-5), SELFISH(1-3)(4-5), CHILDS

Sunday, March 16, 2014

Assortative mating declining?

++Addition++Henry Harpending reminds us that there weren't many changes in educational affinities from 1940 through 2000. Presumably, steady state continues to be the story into the early 21st century.

---

A recent Pew Research report contained the following graph:



At first blush it might appear as though, contra Charles Murray, assortative mating is actually declining, as more bosses marry their secretaries and more high-powered women pair up with charismatic stay-at-home dads. While the pair rates among dual grads has increased, so has the percentage of people who go to college. Among those in their twenties today, about half will end up in either the "college" (bachelor's or more) or "some college" categories. The percentages of those who attain a high school diploma or less has dropped in the last 50 years as well, but not nearly at the magnitude suggested by the graph.

We need clarifying data on the frequencies of educationally unalike marriages to similarly compare these with the provided figures over time. Irritatingly, Pew doesn't provide as much and delving into primary census data is too daunting a requirement on this amateur's time. As is, the only thing to glean with certainty is that educational increases have occurred. Nothing novel there.

In 1960, 79.6% of married couples involved two people with the same levels of broadly defined educational attainment (high school or less, some college, college graduate). By 2012, this fraction had declined to 59.4%. Again, at face value it appears as though assortative mating is more a thing of the past than of the future. However, If we break a population into three groups and then pair members randomly, we'd expect the lowest frequency of same-group pairings if the groups were split 33.3%-33.3%-33.3% (intragroup pairings an expected 33% of the time). Conversely, we'd expect the highest frequency of same-group pairings if the groups were split 100%-0%-0% (100% intragroup pairings). The past was closer to the latter; the present closer to the former. Consequently, it's difficult to disentangle the genuine changes in (dis)assortative mating and when they're occurring from what is simply an artifice of the measurement approach.

Parenthetically, in checking to see if anyone else had asked Pew about the missing data, I noticed the report's comment thread. I happened to do so not long after listening to the Derb discuss his hope, a la 1984, in the commentariat. The title of the report from which the graph comes is "Record share of wives are more educated than their husbands". The comments include snark along the lines of women needing to be careful what they wish for because unhappiness and underperforming husbands go together; the subjects women major in are not as academically rigorous as the fields men study; after a generation of tilting the scales in favor of women, women now achieve higher average levels of educational attainment than men do; and the like. Not a single comment echoes what is contained in the canon of the Cathedral. Refreshing.

Friday, March 14, 2014

Cloistered atheists

In commenting on CPAC's rescinding of a booth for a proselytizing atheist group, the Derb made the following observations:
I doubt there are "many closeted atheists in the church pews" nowadays. Churchgoing no longer has the social valence it once had. Hardly anyone feels socially obliged to go to church nowadays. If you're in those pews, it's because you want to be.

...

There have been atheists in the ranks of conservatives for ever, and they have never felt the need to "closet" themselves.
The GSS doesn't quite extend back to the beginning of forever, but on these particular questions it does reach back a quarter of a decade. On the first point, the percentages of those attending church at least once a month who are either atheist or agnostic by year (with the percentages of atheists/agnostics in the general population in parentheses):

1988 -- 1.1% (5.1%)
1991 -- 2.1% (6.2%)
1993 -- 2.0% (7.4%)
1994 -- 1.2% (5.4%)
1998 -- 2.7% (8.3%)
2000 -- 2.8% (7.2%)
2006 -- 2.0% (6.4%)
2008 -- 1.9% (8.0%)
2010 -- 1.8% (9.0%)
2012 -- 1.3% (8.7%)

Consistently bumping around at the bottom, in the 1-in-50 range. If you're a churchgoer, perhaps a handful of your regular congregants aren't believers, but, unsurprisingly, the vast majority are faithful. That has consistently been the case at least since the eighties. Most non-believers don't attend worship services.

Secondly, let's take a look at the percentages of self-identified political conservatives who identified as either atheist or agnostic by year. For comparative purposes, the percentages of political liberals who identify as atheist or agnostic are in parentheses:

1988 -- 3.6% (9.6%)
1991 -- 6.0% (8.8%)
1993 -- 5.3% (12.5%)
1994 -- 4.3% (8.7%)
1998 -- 4.2% (12.1%)
2000 -- 5.1% (13.8%)
2006 -- 3.5% (11.8%)
2008 -- 3.8% (15.5%)
2010 -- 5.6% (16.7%)
2012 -- 2.6% (17.5%)

Yes, there have always been non-believers in the so-called conservative coalition, but they are, and have been for some time, a minority, never having approached the double-digit percentage mark. The prevalence of secular rightists has remained steady over the last 25 years, even as the percentage of non-believers in the general population has increased. The same thing can't be said about the left, because that's where one will find the newly minted atheists and agnostics. Nearly 1-in-5 (and the fraction is even higher among white liberals) leftists are now atheist or agnostic, and that figure appears to be steadily rising.

While it's reasonable to assume that the irreligious present a growth opportunity for the GOP, this doesn't necessarily mean Republicans will benefit from dropping their mild religious overtones. As has been the case with Hispandering, the leftist-lite approach is hardly a proven winning strategy for the mainstream right.

GSS variables used: GOD(1-2), ATTEND(4-8), YEAR, POLVIEWS(1-3)(5-7)

Wednesday, March 12, 2014

Mitch and Cam

Since 2008, the GSS has specifically and explicitly queried respondents on their sexual orientations. Among those who either were or had previously been married at the time of their participation in the survey, 22.6% of heterosexuals and 41.7% of bisexuals/homosexuals were either divorced or separated when the question was posed to them.

There are major extenuating factors to take note of here. The sample size for gays and bis is, through 2012, only 53. Gays and bis are combined to up the count (though it is also worth noting that gays are more likely to be to divorced/separated than bis are). Some of these bis and especially gays may have been married to members of the opposite sex for reasons other than romantic love and are only now jumping at the opportunity to marry their true bugger halves. 

That said, preliminary figures appear to suggest that same-sex marriages may well be less stable and less durable than traditional marriages are. It looks as though the GSS is going to routinely track sexual orientation going forward, so over time additional data will accumulate. 

Of course, even if same-sex marriages "weaken the institution of marriage"--whatever that is supposed to mean, exactly--by the time such an assertion has irrefutable empirical grounding, gay betrothals will have long become inalienable civil rights. Even if they end up being less sincere than straight betrothals, same-sex marriage won't be reneged upon. To even notice disparities in divorce rates will presumably serve only to out one as a homophobe.

GSS variables used: SEXORNT(1)(2-3), MARITAL(1-4), YEAR(2008-2012)